Bagrah01 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 We can only wish. I'm sold. http://jalopnik.com/342341/detroit-auto-sh...eaks-officially Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Nice car (was parked by a new CTS at the gym the other day) But is this engine the same as what is in the new ZR1 vette de-tuned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) Nice car (was parked by a new CTS at the gym the other day) But is this engine the same as what is in the new ZR1 vette de-tuned? cool car....i could afford gas for about a week....still not keen on the creased/ foldy look...but thats some fast origami! Edited January 9, 2008 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Man I don't like the body kit on that car. It looks horrid. The engine on the other hand is H O T!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 cool car....i could afford gas for about a week....still not keen on the creased/ foldy look...but thats some fast origami! I think this iteration of the CTS is better looking than the first. They're getting better with the creased / folded look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VetteZ06 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Nice car (was parked by a new CTS at the gym the other day) But is this engine the same as what is in the new ZR1 vette de-tuned? Yes, it's essentially the same engine. I believe they refer to it as the LS8, while the ZR1's engine is called the LS9. Beautiful, beautiful car. That interior looks perfect (especially the seats). Should be a monster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 that is a beast but fuck.....does that body kit look like a ricer body kit the old CTS-V looked much, much better.....but this will probably post better numbers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VetteZ06 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 that is a beast but fuck.....does that body kit look like a ricer body kit the old CTS-V looked much, much better.....but this will probably post better numbers Probably? That might just be a slight understatement there. It has a better power-to-weight ratio than either the E63 AMG or the M5, both of which are much faster than the previos-gen CTS-V. I'm thinking 0-60 times in the very low four-second range, if not slightly lower than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Probably? That might just be a slight understatement there. It has a better power-to-weight ratio than either the E63 AMG or the M5, both of which are much faster than the previos-gen CTS-V. I'm thinking 0-60 times in the very low four-second range, if not slightly lower than that. I like this car much better than the normal CTS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Probably? That might just be a slight understatement there. It has a better power-to-weight ratio than either the E63 AMG or the M5, both of which are much faster than the previos-gen CTS-V. I'm thinking 0-60 times in the very low four-second range, if not slightly lower than that. ummm.....sorry? of course i know it is better.....would i would take it over an M5.....not sure about that, even if the CTS-V is faster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 ummm.....sorry? of course i know it is better.....would i would take it over an M5.....not sure about that, even if the CTS-V is faster I would take the BMW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford??-LOL! Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Wow! That thing is a monster!! Good job GM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarShark Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I would take the BMW.I'd take the Cadillac, because many reviews of the M5 have said that it's short on torque, especially low down, so you really have to thrash it to get anything out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I'd take the Cadillac, because many reviews of the M5 have said that it's short on torque, especially low down, so you really have to thrash it to get anything out of it. Well, not many of us are used to that much power anyway lol. I wouldn't even go for a hi power model anyway. 535ix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 its pretty nice, but the subtle front bumper cover of the last generation was alot nicer. that things a manly beast though. i bet even the engine has an awesome beard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I don't know what a few are babbling on about saying that this car looks ricer. And kudos to GM for building an exciting product. It seems they are the only ones of the big 2.8 that know how to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 I don't know what a few are babbling on about saying that this car looks ricer. And kudos to GM for building an exciting product. It seems they are the only ones of the big 2.8 that know how to. Now you have to give Chrysler credit. Also, Ford may only build the Mustang that is exciting, but they build so many kinds.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maranellolt7 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) What happened to Ford saying SVT was going to work on Mercurys and Lincolns? Why is Ford slacking and only thinking about the Mustang when it comes to performance? It seems that they can beat everyone when they want to(F Series, Cammer from the 60's etc.), but can i ever get a true lincoln competitor to this CTS-V? :closedeyes: Edited January 9, 2008 by Maranello Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Now you have to give Chrysler credit. Also, Ford may only build the Mustang that is exciting, but they build so many kinds.... Your right...Chrysler actually has some balls and makes a fairly good line of good, exciting cars. And, yes...the Mustang is exciting...but in a "Oh boy, I hope I don't die, theres a turn coming up", sorta way". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) What happened to Ford saying SVT was going to work on Mercurys and Lincolns? Why is Ford slacking and only thinking about the Mustang when it comes to performance? It seems that they can beat everyone when they want to(F Series, Cammer from the 60's etc.), but can i ever get a true lincoln competitor to this CTS-V? :closedeyes: Because Ford knows everything. Why would someone want a 400hp blown Terminator engine, when a "old-as-dirt" 4.6 with much less power will do? Or how about a 4.0 V6? Edited January 9, 2008 by P71_CrownVic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Your right...Chrysler actually has some balls and makes a fairly good line of good, exciting cars. And, yes...the Mustang is exciting...but in a "Oh boy, I hope I don't die, theres a turn coming up", sorta way". Uh huh, Mustangs are so scary :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinb120 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Your right...Chrysler actually has some balls and makes a fairly good line of good, exciting cars. And, yes...the Mustang is exciting...but in a "Oh boy, I hope I don't die, theres a turn coming up", sorta way". Chrysler has only the 300 which has lost a lot of momentum. Sebring/PT/Crossfire?? All so outclassed they don't even get reviews any more except the new Sebring murder-fest when it first came out. When was anything about the Pacifica news? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Your right...Chrysler actually has some balls and makes a fairly good line of good, exciting cars. And, yes...the Mustang is exciting...but in a "Oh boy, I hope I don't die, theres a turn coming up", sorta way". as it leaves the Chrysler ( which one competes?.....) squandering in its wake.....obviously you have never driven a mustang fast...their handling has been publicly lauded,,,,,even by the bias mags.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 their handling has been publicly lauded Compared to what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.